We read with interest the letter from Carol Graham rebutting the article written by Julie Hillman in the Review, September 27, 1997. Ms. Graham certainly does not have her information correct. We wish to clarify several facts.
Yes, as we have said all along, there are many rooming houses within the City of Oberlin that are operated by conscientious owners. In fact, there are at least twenty-nine out of thirty-three houses owners who either are in the process of adding safety equipment, or have completed their work. Of the other four owners, all of them talk about their support for fire safety, but a merely aesthetically-pleasing house does nothing to enhance fire safety for the occupants. It is the goal of City to insure that quality, safe housing is provided to our student population-a goal supported vocally by many students and the Oberlin College administration. We enforce the codes to ensure students a habitat in which they live and work with the least fear of becoming a "statistic" during a fire.
Ms. Graham claims that the installation of electrically-powered smoke detectors is "almost certainly illegal" under State building codes. The point that she has overlooked is that the City is applying City codes, not State codes. Requirements for safe, effective egress (exit ways) and adequate smoke alarms are City-based ordinances that have existed before 1977. This was even acknowledged by Mr. John Brant, Executive Secretary of the State Board of Building Standards, in a letter to the City on Sept. 17, 1997, in which he clarifies what the City already knows: "The owners have been advised in correspondence from the State that the City may be able to require changes under local ordinances as long as those requirements are not in conflict with the Revised Codes... This means that the local ordinance becomes the basis for the requirement to modify an existing structure, not the state building code." This the reason that City smoke detector and rooming house ordinances exist. However, the City also relies on its State Building inspector to inspect each property for "serious health and safety hazards." Mr. Brant also noted: "We understand the city's intent to assure reasonable safety. It is clear that the city has a right to inspect properties when there is a reason to believe there is a serious health or safety hazard."
It was Ms. Graham's opinion that "there is no appreciable increase in safety to be obtained by hardwired smoke detectors." Nothing could be farther from the truth! In a 1995 study entitled Fire Incident Study: National Smoke Detector Project conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (January 1995), they endeavored to learn why so many detectors failed to operate during fires. Their project investigated the causes of failure in smoke detectors operated in general population households that did not have a fire. Test results for the general households found that 60 percent of the detectors failed to alarm due to missing or disconnected power sources. Ninety-three percent of these detectors were found to be battery-powered. In test results for fire incidents, it was discovered that 59 percent of the detectors failed to alarm due to missing or disconnected power sources. Of these units, 78 percent were battery-powered units, compared with 37 percent of AC-powered units. The finding of the study revealed that "the power source in battery-powered detectors was more likely than the AC-powered detectors to be nonfunctional; this meant that the batteries were dead, missing or disconnected." The study also found that "high risk households may not have enough smoke detectors."
Locally, why did six students have to rely on a student arriving home late one night to discover a developing fire in the basement, with no detector in the basement and six out of seven battery detectors disabled? Based on this data, and fire experiences in similar houses across the country, the City has elected to require interconnected smoke alarms in rooming houses. With this type of system, one detector on each floor of the residence is connected to each of the other floors. Interconnected detectors alert all occupants in the house at the earliest possible time and enhance their ability to escape unharmed.
Oberlin students have rights as tenants. They should ponder these questions: If AC-powered detectors are so inferior in operation (as Ms. Graham thinks), why has the College Administration spent many thousands of dollars over the years to voluntarily upgrade each residence hall with that type of system to protect its students? Has my landlord provided the required City fire safety features in my house to which I am entitled? If not, why not? If you have concerns about the safety of your housing, ask questions. Let the landlord, College Administration and City hall officials hear about your interest in your safety.
Finally, it is not our intention to "shut down" off-campus housing in order to "penalize" students. We are just trying to protect your rights to life and limb while you are our guests in Oberlin.